|
|
Post by tmdreb on Jul 27, 2008 21:47:18 GMT -5
This is a topic I hadn't given much consideration until it surfaced recently in a recent online conversation with several other fellow Mexican Army reenactors. What kind of carbine did the Mexican cavalry carry in the 1835-36 campaigns? There are Brown Bess parts laying all over march routes and campsites, but I'm unaware of really any carbine parts that have been recovered, or any documentation that mentions specifically which model of carbine was employed by Mexico. There are two that I know of that appear in books on the Mexican American War of an unknown type. They are close in appearance to the British Paget carbine, though they have longer barrels than the Paget, as well as two ramrod pipes to the Paget's one. Of course, this could be a different model of Paget than are the ones I've seen. There isn't much information on the internet regarding this weapon, so I might actually have to buy a book. The text accompanying the photo in the Brassey's book seems to think the carbine is of Mexican manufacture due to the eagle stamping on the lockplate. I would think this is more of an indication of ownership. The book also states that is is .75 caliber, when the Paget was .66, I believe.An illustration of a weapon of similar appearance can be found here: www.geocities.com/the_tarins@sbcglobal.net/adp/history/hispanic_period/carbine.htmlA local gun store that specializes in collectible firearms had for sale at one point a cut down Brown Bess that they and their experts thought had been used by the Mexican cavalry. I did find it interesting that the ramrod was of the type found on the Elliot carbine and the Heavy Dragoon carbine, while the belt attachment opposite the lock very much resembled that found on the Paget carbine. In my various readings, I don't recall seeing any separate mention of carbine ammunition. Being that most British carbines of the era seem to have been of a smaller caliber than their infantry muskets, one would think that a record of the logistical impact of this would be found somewhere. I do know that the 1796 Heavy Dragoon carbine takes a .75 ball, so I suppose that is a possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 28, 2008 18:16:10 GMT -5
Interesting and informative inquiry Phil. I seem to recall someone touching on this weapon subject before, but I can't remember where I saw it. Good luck and I hope you find the answer to your question on here. Adios.  |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 30, 2008 3:37:44 GMT -5
The British arms shipped to Mexico arriving in early 1826 included 111,564 muskets, 15,280 carbines, and 2,000 rifles.
Carbines were normally .65 calibre while muskets were .75
There is a reference by Urrea in his account of the fight at Encinal de Perdido/Coleto Creek to his dismounted cavalry having problems because they ran out of ammunition and could only get musket ammunition which wouldn't fit.
As to the possible type: Pagets are routinely mentioned since they are generally regarded as the British Army's standard light cavalry arm during the Napoleonic Wars, however in 1813 there were in fact no fewer than 5 different patterns in production;
India Sergeants Carbines
Artillery Carbines
Elliott's Light Dragoon Carbines
Musket Bore Carbines for Cavalry
Short Cavalry Carbines (Pagets)
The sergeants' and artillery carbines were simply lighter versions of the standard musket with 37" or 39" barrels in .65 calibre. A fair proportion of of the 15,000+ carbines shipped to Mexico will have been of this kind rather than cavalry weapons although I've not so far seen an actual breakdown.
The Elliott's pattern carbine was actually regarded as obsolete at this time, having a 28" barrel in .65 calibre. Both it, and the 1796 pattern .75 heavy cavalry carbine (26" barrel) had two ramrod pipes, which might fit with the archeology.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 30, 2008 4:15:16 GMT -5
By way of a post-script to the above, the musket bore (.75 calibre) carbine illustrated on page 108 of the Brassey book doesn't conform to any official British pattern, but closely resembles the India Pattern musket and may therefore be (a) an East India Company cavalry carbine (I don't have Bailey's book so don't know for sure) or (b) a Mexican conversion - its easily overlooked that although there may not have been a Mexican factory capable of building muskets in any quantity, refurbishing and converting arms is a different matter entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Aug 13, 2008 0:12:14 GMT -5
RR, I think I had posted something equally as tedious regarding light infantry muskets awhile back, but I figure if we can have huge discussions on the various aspects of the construction of the Alamo's lunette, a couple topics on the weaponry of the Mexican Army couldn't hurt.
Stuart, I was hoping you'd help me out with this. Not that I doubt you, but what's your reasoning for thinking that a good portion of the imported carbines were actually sergeant's and artillery model weapons? Do you suppose they were used as their titles might suggest?
A lot of folks seem to mention Baker's carbine when discussing the Mexican Army. I guess it's impossible to say that none were used, but there are too many accounts of extremely poor range and accuracy from Mexican Dragoons for me to accept that its use was widespread or even common.
The carbine we're discussing from the Brassey book is indeed unique. To me, a lot of the hardware looks like the Paget, but it is the wrong length and caliber. Your suggestion that it could be a locally produced item sounds good to me. Maybe Mexico was splicing cut-down Bess barrels with salvaged hardware from worn-out Paget carbines to create a kind of hybrid. It makes sense. The Paget's 16" barrel doesn't leave much left over if it suffers a bulge or burst. At any rate, its large bore size and Mexican War provenance might very well rule out its use in 1835-36.
A possibility I failed to mention in my first post would be a Spanish carbine. While I believe that not a few Texians would describe any weapon in the hands of a Mexican as an escopeta, the frequent use of that word in period accounts could lead one to believe that there were some of these still in use in 1836.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 13, 2008 1:16:37 GMT -5
Phil, as I said I don't have a breakdown of the carbines supplied, but its an important caution. Once armies started standardising their ammunition with the introduction of breech-loaders the term carbine came to be used to denote a shortened rifle carried by cavalry, but back in our period the term related not to barrel length but to calibre.
"long barrelled" carbines were still being carried by all sergeants of infantry regiments and by artillerymen in the British Army at this time so it would be a mistake to assume that all of the carbines on the manifests were short cavalry ones.
There is another consideration to bear in mind here. The Paget carbine was not highly regarded in the British service as it was hopelessly inaccurate at all but the very closest ranges. It was quite notorious that outposts skirmishing rarely if ever did any damage to each other unless one side managed to ambush the other by charging with swords - which is one reason why the Elliot and Heavy Dragoon carbines lasted so long. I'm sceptical therefore whether the Indian-fighting presidial companies would ever have touched them. They could well have had Elliotts - or even sergeants and artillery carbines slung on their backs.
That apparent hybrid illustrated in the Brassey book may well have been made for that very reason - ie the general uselessness of the Paget
One last possibility, worth bearing in mind is that while its assumed a lot of the stuff going to Mexico was surplus British Government stock left over after the Napoleonic Wars, some of it may well have been purchased directly from the trade. There was next to nothing in the way of government manufacture at this time and most weapons used by the British army were made - to pattern - by private makers. When government contracts were scarce as at this period these makers would happily build guns for other customers, to whatever specification might be required.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Aug 14, 2008 21:58:34 GMT -5
Stuart,
Those are some great thoughts! I'm not sure why I never considered the "custom order" angle on the non-standard carbine. I've seen quite a few other British military firearms whose features were altered somewhat in production to meet the specifications of one buyer or another.
I've also thought that the Elliot would have been a good bulk purchase for Mexico. It'd fit the bill for sergeants, artillery, light infantry and mounted troops. Of course, I was not involved at all in making purchases for the Mexican military in the 1820's, so my thoughts might be different than those who were.
You have a good point about the presidials and Pagets. Indeed, the 1828 Tapia illustration of a presidial trooper in Texas seems to show a long-barreled weapon in a fringed leather case. As far as the regular cavalry and dragoons are concerned, there still seems to be plenty of accounts of them having trouble with the very limited range of their carbines vs. the Texians. I'm wondering if this isn't evidence that they were using Paget carbines.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimxhoosier on Mar 6, 2011 10:46:56 GMT -5
I recently bought a British flintlock cavalry carbine with a 20 inch .75 caliber barrel, two brass ramrod guides, with TOWER and a crown over GR on the lockplate. It looks like a Paget carbine except for the barrel length and caliber. The sling bar has been removed as has the swivel for the 20 inch ramrod. Sling swivels have been added to the front of the trigger guard and front of the stock.
Based on a reading of Howard Blackmore's book titled British Military Firearms 1650-1850, I would guess that it is a Musket bore carbine for the cavalry (probably the heavy cavalry) from the Napoleonic Wars period.
I would greatly appreciate if someone could give me the full reference title for "Brassey's book", since I have been unable to find it on either Amazon or ABE Books.
Jim Vaughan
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 6, 2011 11:07:53 GMT -5
|
|
